It's the first hours of California's ban on the sale of foie gras, and already opponents of the legislation have been on the phone with their lawyers. They're confused, angry and looking for loopholes.

There are people in this state whose marriages have been nullified by legislation that was a lot less than six years in the making. For foie gras advocates to be 'confused' and 'angry' is a little disingenuous, especially here in San Francisco.

Quote:

"We're certainly not telling anyone to break the law, but that's part of the problem. What exactly is the law?" said Rob Black, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the trade organization that, with a coalition of chefs, is trying to amend the legislation to allow the sale of foie gras as long as humane farming standards are employed.

I don't see what the confusion is. The law is against buying, selling, or manufacturing foie gras. There are no humane farming standards where foie gras is concerned because it is an inherently cruel product that cannot be made otherwise.

They had like 8 years to come up with an alleged "humane" alternative to force feeding. It can't be done. The only hope these pro-foie folks have is if the law gets repealed like Chicago, or if the police choose not to enforce the law. Should be an interesting couple months. Fingers crossed that the law sticks and that California activists come bring the pressure to any restaurant that violates the ban.

_________________Half the lies I tell are not true."luckily us vegans dont go into cardiac arrest...but we do go into food comas" - Adam Crisis

But society still needs laws to outline what is ethically acceptable, and to outline how to appropriately punish those who breach what we as a majority deem to be societal ethics.

really, ethicAL behavior is determined by the majority... becAuse, you know, historicAlly thAT's alwAYs worked out reALly well.

_________________The above has probably offended you. I have found it impossible to post to these forums without offending someone. I have preemptively said 25 hail seitans in the hope that I may appease the ppk gods and not be smote from these boards.

seriously though, even if people find loopholes or ignore the law, it's encouraging to me that there was enough support to get a law like this passed in the first place. It's an indicator that at least some of society is taking some notice of food related animal cruelty.

_________________Like the beleaguered people of sub-Saharan Africa, I'll just go to Denny's. Solidarity!-mumbles

They had like 8 years to come up with an alleged "humane" alternative to force feeding. It can't be done.

This isn't strictly true-- there is apparently a guy who came up with a way to do so that involved basically covering the ground in corn and stuff and waiting for wild birds to land and eat it. Wild birds, given the chance, WILL gorge themselves enough to develop fatty livers, but it's pretty unusual and very rare and very difficult to do intentionally. (And is thus even more expensive.)

I'm not advocating hunting wild birds for the chance of a fatty liver, but to say that there is no humane alternative to force-feeding is incorrect. There is; it's expensive; you're still ganking a bird in order to devour its organs, which is the yuck on a number of levels.

Just a day after California's foie gras ban became official on Sunday, a group of businesses filed a lawsuit against the state alleging that the law is unclear about what products are actually banned and unfairly burdens restaurants and distributors with finding out.

and apparently, people just don't give a fork if it is illegal or not

Quote:

The move is in keeping with widespread dissent over the ban. Eater tells us that San Clemente restaurant Cafe Mimosa was serving a six-course "Foie You!" menu for $150 three days into the ban. "They can lock me up if they want ... I don't mind," owner Antoine Price told the OC Register.

Selling foie gras probably doesn't mean jail time, but those who do could face a $1,000 fine. It's unlikely, though, that the ban will be strictly enforced.

Disappointing. Then again, for those of us in California, or other states that can remember when smoking was first banned in bars, similar things happened. Many lawsuits, and at first a lot of bar owners said "fork it" and still allowed smoking and just paid the fines. There are also these alcoholic drinks that are now illegal (very recently) in CA (they are caffeine + malt liquor: Sparks, Four Loko, Joose) and I know a lot of liquor stores that still sell them. I ask them why, and they say they will just pay the fine if they get caught (I am ghetto and actually like these drinks, which is why I noticed in the first place). They make enough money off of them to pay the fine and still turn a profit. Also, it’s not like the police or the BAC is busting down the door to enforce them

Now I know smoking in public places has changed, it is basically non-existent now, mostly because it hurts and bothers other people. This foie gras thing does not hurt people, nor do most people care at all about it, but maybe people will become more aware and eventually even the law breakers will chill out. But I think that is just wistful thinking on my part.

They make enough money off of them to pay the fine and still turn a profit.

This. With the price of foie gras, especially now that they can charge extra for black market foie gras, a $1,000 fine should be easy to pay off. They may still even turn a profit on it.

_________________"...anarchists only want to burn cars and punch cops."- nickvicious"We'll be eating our own words 30 years from now when we're demanding our legislators outlaw aerosol-based cyber dildo-wielding death holograms."- Brian

There is an Asian restaurant downtown that I "like" on FB even though I've never been, because they offer many vegan dishes. Well, they posted a pic of some noodle dish with foie gras on it and titled it "No foie gras ban here!" No one "liked" it, and one person wrote "boo" and I wrote "I just banned myself from your restaurant." The post was promptly removed.

There is an Asian restaurant downtown that I "like" on FB even though I've never been, because they offer many vegan dishes. Well, they posted a pic of some noodle dish with foie gras on it and titled it "No foie gras ban here!" No one "liked" it, and one person wrote "boo" and I wrote "I just banned myself from your restaurant." The post was promptly removed.

Crust, one anti-foie gras activist went and wrote negative Facebook reviews for restaurants that served foie gras. Since you are local and can speak favorably about their vegan options, your review about how disappointed you are about their serving this cruel food in this antagonistic manner would carry some weight. And I'm not sure whether the restaurant can delete a review. Just a thought.